RE: The New Jesus Timeline
August 18, 2012 at 4:28 pm
(This post was last modified: August 18, 2012 at 4:54 pm by Simon Moon.)
(August 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm)elunico13 Wrote: (A debate between 2 evolutionists)
Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’
Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’
‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.
So, what's the problem with what Dawkins said?
He's entirely correct, science deniers have to get over the fact that evolution (an observed natural process) contradicts their pet creation myths.
But the fact is, our best impulses do seem to have a basis in nature.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
